Difference between revisions of "Bibliography: Benchmarking"
m (→Benchmarking: Ball Mill Power Draw - Fimiston) |
(Blanked the page) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Category:Bibliography]] |
||
| − | [[Category:Models]] |
||
| − | [[Category: Benchmarking]] |
||
| − | ==Bibliography: Benchmarking of models== |
||
| − | The following list of references show data useful for benchmarking against the different models. |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Bond/Barratt== |
||
| − | * ''Magnuson, R.; Hallow, J.; Mosher, J.; Major, K.'', '''The Fort Knox Mill: Design, Commissioning and Operation'''. Proceedings of the SAG 2001 Conference, Vancouver, Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Result for default model conditions: |
||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | ! E<sub>total</sub> |
||
| − | ! Wi<sub>O</sub> |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | ! Tonnage |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Model |
||
| − | | 11.95 |
||
| − | | 16.60 |
||
| − | | kWh/t |
||
| − | | 1,522 |
||
| − | | t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Measured |
||
| − | | 10.50 |
||
| − | | 13.97 |
||
| − | | kWh/t |
||
| − | | 1,733 |
||
| − | | t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Difference |
||
| − | | 1.45 |
||
| − | | 2.63 |
||
| − | | kWh/t |
||
| − | | 211 |
||
| − | | t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Difference |
||
| − | | 12.9% |
||
| − | | 17.2% |
||
| − | | |
||
| − | | 12.9% |
||
| − | | |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Bond - Fort Knox|Show details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: Circuit Specific Energy Consumption - Bond/Barratt== |
||
| − | |||
| − | * ''Morrison, R.'', '''Current Plant Conditions at Copper Mountain'''. Presentation to the BC/Yukon Branch Canadian Mineral Processors, November 29, 2012; Vancouver, Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Result for default model conditions: |
||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! |
||
| − | ! Tonnage |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Model |
||
| − | | 1455 t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Measured |
||
| − | | 1600 t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Difference |
||
| − | | 145 t/h |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Difference |
||
| − | | 9.5% |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Bond - Copper Mountain|Show details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Fimiston== |
||
| − | |||
| − | * ''Nelson, M; Valery, W; Morrell, S'', '''Performance Characteristics and Optimisation of the Fimiston (KCGM) SAG Mill Circuit''', Page 233 - 248, SAG 1996 Conference, Vancouver, Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! Survey |
||
| − | ! Survey Power,<br>kW at input |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>%critical |
||
| − | ! Ball load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Total load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Pulp %solids,<br>w/w |
||
| − | ! Morrell SAG Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | ! Loveday/Baratt Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 1 |
||
| − | | '''9,255''' |
||
| − | | 72.5 |
||
| − | | 13 |
||
| − | | 21.6 |
||
| − | | 65.9 |
||
| − | | '''9,268''' / ''8,764'' |
||
| − | | '''10,372''' / ''9,808'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 2 |
||
| − | | '''10,374''' |
||
| − | | 77 |
||
| − | | 13 |
||
| − | | 25.2 |
||
| − | | 63.3 |
||
| − | | '''10,481''' / ''9,911'' |
||
| − | | '''11,238''' / ''10,636'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 3 |
||
| − | | '''8,395''' |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | 15 |
||
| − | | 16.1 |
||
| − | | 70 |
||
| − | | '''9,193''' / ''8,693'' |
||
| − | | '''10,818''' / ''10,230'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 4 |
||
| − | | '''8,299''' |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 11.5 |
||
| − | | 13.5 |
||
| − | | 60 |
||
| − | | '''7,766''' / ''7,344'' |
||
| − | | '' can't do '' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 5 |
||
| − | | '''10,976''' |
||
| − | | 80 |
||
| − | | 11.5 |
||
| − | | 22.2 |
||
| − | | 60 |
||
| − | | '''9,877''' / ''9,340'' |
||
| − | | '''10,322''' / ''9,760'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 6 |
||
| − | | '''8,616''' |
||
| − | | 74 |
||
| − | | 11.5 |
||
| − | | 13.6 |
||
| − | | 63 |
||
| − | | '''7,394''' / ''6,992'' |
||
| − | | '' can't do '' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 7 |
||
| − | | '''11,684''' |
||
| − | | 82 |
||
| − | | 14 |
||
| − | | 20 |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | '''10,782''' / ''10,195'' |
||
| − | | '''11,037''' / ''10,437'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 8 |
||
| − | | '''11,610''' |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 13 |
||
| − | | 28.6 |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | '''11,415''' / ''10,794'' |
||
| − | | '''11,125''' / ''10,520'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 9 |
||
| − | | '''11,571''' |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 13 |
||
| − | | 25.8 |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | '''10,990''' / ''10,392'' |
||
| − | | '''11,668''' / ''11,033'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 10 |
||
| − | | '''9,408''' |
||
| − | | 80 |
||
| − | | 12 |
||
| − | | 19 |
||
| − | | 75 |
||
| − | | '''9,655''' / ''9,130'' |
||
| − | | '''10,309''' / ''9,749'' |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | * The overall average difference between the Morrell model motor input predictions and the measurements are -3.4%, and range from -15.3% to +9.1%. |
||
| − | *The overall average difference between the Loveday/Barratt model motor input predictions and the measurements are +4.8%, and range from -6.1% to +25.2%. |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Fimiston SAG|See details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia== |
||
| − | * ''Radziszewski, P.; Valery, W'', '''Cadia SAG Mill Simulated Charge Behaviour''', Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors, Ottawa, 1999. |
||
| − | |||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! Survey |
||
| − | ! Survey Power,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>%critical |
||
| − | ! Ball load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Total load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Morrell SAG Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Loveday/Baratt Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 1 |
||
| − | | 11,189 |
||
| − | | 79 |
||
| − | | 0 |
||
| − | | 28.8 |
||
| − | | 11,868 |
||
| − | | 12,126 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 2 |
||
| − | | 10,321 |
||
| − | | 79 |
||
| − | | 0 |
||
| − | | 28.5 |
||
| − | | 11,787 |
||
| − | | 12,039 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 3 |
||
| − | | 10,824 |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 4 |
||
| − | | 25 |
||
| − | | 12,762 |
||
| − | | 13,390 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 4 |
||
| − | | 14,945 |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 4 |
||
| − | | 40.7 |
||
| − | | 15,806 |
||
| − | | 15,096 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 5 |
||
| − | | 17,586 |
||
| − | | 74 |
||
| − | | 12 |
||
| − | | 31.6 |
||
| − | | 17,351 |
||
| − | | 18,216 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 6 |
||
| − | | 17,963 |
||
| − | | 78 |
||
| − | | 12 |
||
| − | | 26.1 |
||
| − | | 17,298 |
||
| − | | 18,505 |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | * Morrell model predicts, on average, 6% high. |
||
| − | * Loveday/Barratt model predicts, on average, 9% high. |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Cadia SAG mill|See details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Cadia== |
||
| − | * ''Boghey, A.; Svalbonas, V.; Jones, S.M.'', '''Supply, Installation & Commissioning of the World's Largest Grinding Mill''', Annual General Meeting of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (SME), 2000. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Mill filling level 33% v/v. Ball charge not measured, but expected to be in 12% to 13% v/v range. Ore density not indicated, assuming 2.65 kg/L. Ball density given as 7.85 kg/L. |
||
| − | |||
| − | Survey conducted during late commissioning, Figure 8 yields: |
||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! Survey |
||
| − | ! Survey Power,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>RPM |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>%critical |
||
| − | ! Morrell SAG Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | ! Loveday/Barratt Model,<br>kW at shell |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | 23:30 |
||
| − | | 19,300 |
||
| − | | 8.99 |
||
| − | | 73.7 |
||
| − | | 17,148 |
||
| − | | 18,233 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | 23:40 |
||
| − | | 19,450 |
||
| − | | 9.4 |
||
| − | | 77.1 |
||
| − | | 18,042 |
||
| − | | 19,199 |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | 23:50 |
||
| − | | 19,550 |
||
| − | | 9.9 |
||
| − | | 81.2 |
||
| − | | 19,058 |
||
| − | | 19,868 |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: SAG Mill Power Draw - Yanacocha== |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Benchmarking: Ball Mill Power Draw - Fimiston== |
||
| − | * ''Nelson, M; Valery, W; Morrell, S'', '''Performance Characteristics and Optimisation of the Fimiston (KCGM) SAG Mill Circuit''', Page 233 - 248, SAG 1996 Conference, Vancouver, Canada. |
||
| − | |||
| − | {| class="wikitable" border="1" |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | ! Survey |
||
| − | ! Survey Power,<br>kW at input |
||
| − | ! Mill speed,<br>%critical |
||
| − | ! Total load,<br>%v/v |
||
| − | ! Pulp %solids,<br>w/w |
||
| − | ! Morrell SAG Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | ! Nordberg Model,<br>kW at input / ''shell'' |
||
| − | |- |
||
| − | | Survey 1 |
||
| − | | '''3,864''' |
||
| − | | 68.3 |
||
| − | | 38.7 |
||
| − | | 72.0 |
||
| − | | '''3,933''' / ''3,776'' |
||
| − | | '''3,592''' / ''3,345'' |
||
| − | |} |
||
| − | |||
| − | * Morrell model predicts 2% high |
||
| − | * Nordberg model predicts 7% low |
||
| − | |||
| − | [[Benchmarking: Fimiston Ball Mills|See details of benchmarking]] |
||
| − | |||
| − | ==Historic & Other Interesting Benchmarking== |
||
| − | # ''Myers, J.F., Michaelson, S.D., Bond, F.C.'', '''Rod Milling—Plant and Laboratory Data''', Technical Publication No. 2175, American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, 1947. [http://www.onemine.org/search/summary.cfm/Rod-MillingPlant-And-Laboratory-Data?d=655D010DD9E32C42324054B43931E04C552207CAB9653233F0AC73A4C8F07C4928898&fullText=Myers%20Michaelson%20Bond] |
||
